Talk:Gabriel Jones (politician)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 21:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Caponer (talk)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 21:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Major Point 1: Early life and education "" (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body) Major Point 2: Political career "Jones served as the Clerk of Court for Hampshire County, Virginia (now West Virginia) for a tenure lasting 25 years (1757–1782) and represented Frederick, Hampshire, and Augusta counties as a member of the House of Burgesses of Virginia. In addition, Jones also served as the King's Attorney for Augusta County and as the coroner for Frederick County." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 3: Later life and legacy "He was elected to represent Virginia at the Continental Congress, but did not attend, and was elected to represent Rockingham County in the Virginia Ratifying Convention." & "Jones was an uncle of American pioneer John Gabriel Jones (1752–1776) and he was a friend of both George Washington and Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron." (summarised well in the lead) Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Major Point 1: Early life and education "" (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 2: Political career "Jones served as the Clerk of Court for Hampshire County, Virginia (now West Virginia) for a tenure lasting 25 years (1757–1782) and represented Frederick, Hampshire, and Augusta counties as a member of the House of Burgesses of Virginia. In addition, Jones also served as the King's Attorney for Augusta County and as the coroner for Frederick County." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 3: Later life and legacy "He was elected to represent Virginia at the Continental Congress, but did not attend, and was elected to represent Rockingham County in the Virginia Ratifying Convention." & "Jones was an uncle of American pioneer John Gabriel Jones (1752–1776) and he was a friend of both George Washington and Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done Gabriel Jones (May 17, 1724 – October 1806) was an 18th-century Welsh American lawyer, legislator, court clerk, and civil servant in the colony (and later U.S. state) of Virginia. Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies:  Done Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done I’d recommend that the Heading 2s Physical description and Landholdings be removed. This article establishes the notability of Gabriel Jones as "Welsh American lawyer, legislator, court clerk, and civil servant". Giving Heading 2s to his physical description and landholdings in the body appears a bit inconsistent to me. Adjust few very important and notable points from these Heading 2s in other sections, if possible. Can you think of any better approach to the one I’m suggesting? Can you convert one quote by Thomas Marshall Green in the Later life and legacy section to prose? It’s pretty short and two adjacent boxes are affecting the layout. I’m not sure about this recommendation. What do you think? Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): None Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): None Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): None Check for Links to sister projects: None Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
Done Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Convert the list to prose in the Personal life section. Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google. Cross-checked with other GAs)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Cross-checked with other GAs: Virginia Argus and Hampshire Advertiser, Confederate Memorial (Romney, West Virginia), Wirgman Building, Wappocomo (Romney, West Virginia), Christian Streit White, Valley View (Romney, West Virginia), Alexander White (Virginia), Francis White (Virginia) Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: No Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Cross-checked with other GAs: Virginia Argus and Hampshire Advertiser, Confederate Memorial (Romney, West Virginia), Wirgman Building, Wappocomo (Romney, West Virginia), Christian Streit White, Valley View (Romney, West Virginia), Alexander White (Virginia), Francis White (Virginia) Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC): Fix the Personal life section. It appears a bit off-topic to me. Remove the list containing the details about the children.

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (PD)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done Caption: "Jones maintained correspondences with George Washington, as evidenced in this June 6, 1777 letter written by Jones to Washington." succinct and informative

I'm glad to see your work here. The prose quality in particular has been fantastic in all your articles. As per the above checklist, I do have some insights that I think will be useful in improving the article:

• I think the lead can be improved in order to provide an accessible overview and to give relative emphasis to the Early life and education.
• I think the layout needs to be fixed.
• Can you fix too many adjacent inline citations within sentences throughout the prose? They are inhibiting the flow. Why so many? One appears fine to me? Move all the inline citations towards the end of the sentence to improve the flow.

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Caponer, please feel free to strike out any recommendation you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 20:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Seabuckthorn, thank you for taking the time to conduct this very comprehensive and thoughtful review. I promise to address all the above issues you've listed within the next few days. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Seabuckthorn, I've addressed all your above comments and suggestions in the article. I've added the necessary content to the lead, modified the list of children by turning that information into prose, and moved the physical description section into the personal life section. As for the landholdings, it is far too massive to move elsewhere, and a lot of its content will not fit neatly in the other sections. Is it a deal breaker if it continues to stand alone? Thanks again for the review! -- Caponer (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)